There are some good ideas here, I wish you could separate them from… the lazy preaching to anti-capitalist masses, making lots of dubious assumptions.
The general message is that “simplifying things is bad, because it makes people lazy”. But, you know, try to go in the opposite direction and make everything 1000× more difficult, would that be a better way to live? Sometimes simplicity is good. Simplifying X makes it possible to spend more time and energy on Y. Sometimes it comes with negative consequences. A more nuanced approach is needed. (Perhaps the problem is that we have many very simple things, many difficult things, and very little in between? As opposed to the past, when things were less bimodal, so you could gradually grow your willpower? Dunno, just thinking aloud. Probably not.)
I doubt that capitalist America invented hedonism in 20th century. Pretty sure ancient Romans had it too… well, the wealthy minority of them. So perhaps capitalist America is guilty of making hedonism available also to the previously starving masses. I am not sure about friendships and books, but many Americans still have families and careers.
I agree that people spend shorter intervals in jobs. But did people in the past perceive their life-long jobs as more meaningful, or was it just a necessary evil they had to endure? (Or perhaps a Stockholm syndrome?) Now that people don’t work 12 hours a day, they can find meaning also in their hobbies.
Is instant dating worse than e.g. the cultural norm of burning the widows? Just to give an example of a high-commitment alternative.
If such option was available, would you voluntarily sign a slavery contract? Doing so would remove your options, which you suggest would give your life more meaning. Or perhaps hire an assassin to murder you on your 30th birthday, because shorter life would give you more meaning per day...
There are some good ideas here, I wish you could separate them from… the lazy preaching to anti-capitalist masses, making lots of dubious assumptions.
The general message is that “simplifying things is bad, because it makes people lazy”. But, you know, try to go in the opposite direction and make everything 1000× more difficult, would that be a better way to live? Sometimes simplicity is good. Simplifying X makes it possible to spend more time and energy on Y. Sometimes it comes with negative consequences. A more nuanced approach is needed. (Perhaps the problem is that we have many very simple things, many difficult things, and very little in between? As opposed to the past, when things were less bimodal, so you could gradually grow your willpower? Dunno, just thinking aloud. Probably not.)
I doubt that capitalist America invented hedonism in 20th century. Pretty sure ancient Romans had it too… well, the wealthy minority of them. So perhaps capitalist America is guilty of making hedonism available also to the previously starving masses. I am not sure about friendships and books, but many Americans still have families and careers.
I agree that people spend shorter intervals in jobs. But did people in the past perceive their life-long jobs as more meaningful, or was it just a necessary evil they had to endure? (Or perhaps a Stockholm syndrome?) Now that people don’t work 12 hours a day, they can find meaning also in their hobbies.
Is instant dating worse than e.g. the cultural norm of burning the widows? Just to give an example of a high-commitment alternative.
If such option was available, would you voluntarily sign a slavery contract? Doing so would remove your options, which you suggest would give your life more meaning. Or perhaps hire an assassin to murder you on your 30th birthday, because shorter life would give you more meaning per day...